PART I.
Reproduction may be divided into two main classes, namely, sexual and asexual. The latter is effected in many ways—by the formation of buds of various kinds, and by fissiparous generation, that is by spontaneous or artificial division. It is notorious that some of the lower animals, when cut into many pieces, reproduce so many perfect individuals: Lyonnet cut a Nais or freshwater worm into nearly forty pieces, and these all reproduced perfect animals.[[2]] It is probable that segmentation could be carried much further in some of the protozoa; and with some of the lowest plants each cell will reproduce the parent-form. Johannes Müller thought that there was an important distinction between gemmation and fission; for in the latter case the divided portion, however small, is more fully developed than a bud, which also is a younger formation; but most physiologists are now convinced that the two processes are essentially alike.[[3]] Prof. Huxley remarks, “fission is little more than a peculiar mode of budding,” and Prof. H. J. Clark shows in detail that there is sometimes “a compromise between self-division and budding.” When a limb is amputated, or when the whole body is bisected, the cut extremities are said to bud forth;[[4]] and as the papilla, which is first formed, consists of undeveloped cellular tissue like that forming an ordinary bud, the expression is apparently correct. We see the connection of the two processes in another way; for Trembley observed with the hydra, that the reproduction of the head after amputation was checked as soon as the animal put forth reproductive gemmæ.[[5]]
Between the production, by fissiparous generation, of two or more complete individuals, and the repair of even a very slight injury, there is so perfect a gradation, that it is impossible to doubt that the two processes are connected. As at each stage of growth an amputated part is replaced by one in the same state of development, we must also follow Sir J. Paget in admitting, “that the powers of development from the embryo, are identical with those exercised for the restoration from injuries: in other words, that the powers are the same by which perfection is first achieved, and by which, when lost, it is recovered.”[[6]] Finally, we may conclude that the several forms of budding, fissiparous generation, the repair of injuries, and development, are all essentially the results of one and the same power.
Sexual Generation.—The union of the two sexual elements seems at first sight to make a broad distinction between sexual and asexual generation. But the conjugation of algæ, by which process the contents of two cells unite into a single mass capable of development, apparently gives us the first step towards sexual union: and Pringsheim, in his memoir on the pairing of Zoospores,[[7]] shows that conjugation graduates into true sexual reproduction. Moreover, the now well-ascertained cases of Parthenogenesis prove that the distinction between sexual and asexual generation is not nearly so great as was formerly thought; for ova occasionally, and even in some cases frequently, become developed into perfect beings, without the concourse of the male. With most of the lower animals and even with mammals, the ova show a trace of parthenogenetic power, for without being fertilised they pass through the first stages of segmentation.[[8]] Nor can pseudova which do not need fertilisation, be distinguished from true ova, as was first shown by Sir J. Lubbock, and is now admitted by Siebold. So, again, the germ-balls in the larvæ of Cecidomyia are said by Leuckart[[9]] to be formed within the ovarium, but they do not require to be fertilised. It should also be observed that in sexual generation, the ovules and the male element have equal power of transmitting every single character possessed by either parent to their offspring. We see this clearly when hybrids are paired inter se, for the characters of both grandparents often appear in the progeny, either perfectly or by segments. It is an error to suppose that the male transmits certain characters and the female other characters; although no doubt, from unknown causes, one sex sometimes has a much stronger power of transmission than the other.
It has, however, been maintained by some authors that a bud differs essentially from a fertilised germ, in always reproducing the perfect character of the parent-stock; whilst fertilised germs give birth to variable beings. But there is no such broad distinction as this. In the eleventh chapter numerous cases were advanced showing that buds occasionally grow into plants having quite new characters; and the varieties thus produced can be propagated for a length of time by buds, and occasionally by seed. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that beings produced sexually are much more liable to vary than those produced asexually; and of this fact a partial explanation will hereafter be attempted. The variability in both cases is determined by the same general causes, and is governed by the same laws. Hence new varieties arising from buds cannot be distinguished from those arising from seed. Although bud-varieties usually retain their character during successive bud-generations, yet they occasionally revert, even after a long series of bud-generations, to their former character. This tendency to reversion in buds, is one of the most remarkable of the several points of agreement between the offspring from bud and seminal reproduction.
But there is one difference between organisms produced sexually and asexually, which is very general. The former pass in the course of their development from a very low stage to their highest stage, as we see in the metamorphoses of insects and of many other animals, and in the concealed metamorphoses of the vertebrata. Animals propagated asexually by buds or fission, on the other hand, commence their development at that stage at which the budding or self-dividing animal may happen to be, and therefore do not pass through some of the lower developmental stages.[[10]] Afterwards, they often advance in organisation, as we see in the many cases of “alternate generation.” In thus speaking of alternate generation, I follow those naturalists who look at this process as essentially one of internal budding or of fissiparous generation. Some of the lower plants, however, such as mosses and certain algæ, according to Dr. L. Radlkofer,[[11]] when propagated asexually, do undergo a retrogressive metamorphosis. As far as the final cause is concerned, we can to a certain extent understand why beings propagated by buds should not pass through all the early stages of development; for with each organism the structure acquired at each stage must be adapted to its peculiar habits; and if there are places for the support of many individuals at some one stage, the simplest plan will be that they should be multiplied at this stage, and not that they should first retrograde in their development to an earlier or simpler structure, which might not be fitted for the then surrounding conditions.
From the several foregoing considerations we may conclude that the difference between sexual and asexual generation is not nearly so great as at first appears; the chief difference being that an ovule cannot continue to live and to be fully developed unless it unites with the male element; but even this difference is far from invariable, as shown by the many cases of parthenogenesis. We are therefore naturally led to inquire what the final cause can be of the necessity in ordinary generation for the concourse of the two sexual elements.
Seeds and ova are often highly serviceable as the means of disseminating plants and animals, and of preserving them during one or more seasons in a dormant state; but unimpregnated seeds or ova, and detached buds, would be equally serviceable for both purposes. We can, however, indicate two important advantages gained by the concourse of the two sexes, or rather of two individuals belonging to opposite sexes; for, as I have shown in a former chapter, the structure of every organism appears to be especially adapted for the concurrence, at least occasionally, of two individuals. When species are rendered highly variable by changed conditions of life, the free intercrossing of the varying individuals tends to keep each form fitted for its proper place in nature; and crossing can be effected only by sexual generation; but whether the end thus gained is of sufficient importance to account for the first origin of sexual intercourse is extremely doubtful. Secondly, I have shown from a large body of facts, that, as a slight change in the conditions of life is beneficial to each creature, so, in an analogous manner, is the change effected in the germ by sexual union with a distinct individual; and I have been led, from observing the many widely-extended provisions throughout nature for this purpose, and from the greater vigour of crossed organisms of all kinds, as proved by direct experiments, as well as from the evil effects of close interbreeding when long continued, to believe that the advantage thus gained is very great.
Why the germ, which before impregnation undergoes a certain amount of development, ceases to progress and perishes, unless it be acted on by the male element; and why conversely the male element, which in the case of some insects is enabled to keep alive for four or five years, and in the case of some plants for several years, likewise perishes, unless it acts on or unites with the germ, are questions which cannot be answered with certainty. It is, however, probable that both sexual elements perish, unless brought into union, simply from including too little formative matter for independent development. Quatrefages has shown in the case of the Teredo,[[12]] as did formerly Prevost and Dumas with other animals, that more than one spermatozoon is requisite to fertilise an ovum. This has likewise been shown by Newport,[[13]] who proved by numerous experiments, that, when a very small number of spermatozoa are applied to the ova of Batrachians, they are only partially impregnated, and an embryo is never fully developed. The rate also of the segmentation of the ovum is determined by the number of the spermatozoa. With respect to plants, nearly the same results were obtained by Kölreuter and Gärtner. This last careful observer, after making successive trials on a Malva with more and more pollen-grains, found,[[14]] that even thirty grains did not fertilise a single seed; but when forty grains were applied to the stigma, a few seeds of small size were formed. In the case of Mirabilis the pollen grains are extraordinarily large, and the ovarium contains only a single ovule; and these circumstances led Naudin[[15]] to make the following experiments: a flower was fertilised by three grains and succeeded perfectly; twelve flowers were fertilised by two grains, and seventeen flowers by a single grain, and of these one flower alone in each lot perfected its seed: and it deserves especial notice that the plants produced by these two seeds never attained their proper dimensions, and bore flowers of remarkably small size. From these facts we clearly see that the quantity of the peculiar formative matter which is contained within the spermatozoa and pollen-grains is an all-important element in the act of fertilisation, not only for the full development of the seed, but for the vigour of the plant produced from such seed. We see something of the same kind in certain cases of parthenogenesis, that is, when the male element is wholly excluded; for M. Jourdan[[16]] found that, out of about 58,000 eggs laid by unimpregnated silk-moths, many passed through their early embryonic stages, showing that they were capable of self-development, but only twenty-nine out of the whole number produced caterpillars. The same principle of quantity seems to hold good even in artificial fissiparous reproduction, for Hackel[[17]] found that by cutting the segmented and fertilised ova or larva of Siphonophoræ (jelly-fishes) into pieces, the smaller the pieces were, the slower was the rate of development, and the larvæ thus produced were by so much the more imperfect and inclined to monstrosity. It seems, therefore, probable that with the separate sexual elements deficient quantity of formative matter is the main cause of their not having the capacity for prolonged existence and development, unless they combine and thus increase each other’s bulk. The belief that it is the function of the spermatozoa to communicate life to the ovule seems a strange one, seeing that the unimpregnated ovule is already alive and generally undergoes a certain amount of independent development. Sexual and asexual reproduction are thus seen not to differ essentially; and we have already shown that asexual reproduction, the power of re-growth and development are all parts of one and the same great law.
Re-growth of amputated parts.—This subject deserves a little further discussion. A multitude of the lower animals and some vertebrates possess this wonderful power. For instance, Spallanzani cut off the legs and tail of the same salamander six times successively, and Bonnet[[18]] did so eight times; and on each occasion the limbs were reproduced on the exact line of amputation, with no part deficient or in excess. An allied animal, the axolotl, had a limb bitten off, which was reproduced in an abnormal condition, but when this was amputated it was replaced by a perfect limb.[[19]] The new limbs in these cases bud forth, and are developed in the same manner as during the regular development of a young animal. For instance, with the Amblystoma lurida, three toes are first developed, then the fourth, and on the hind-feet the fifth, and so it is with a reproduced limb.[[20]]
The power of re-growth is generally much greater during the youth of an animal or during the earlier stages of its development than during maturity. The larvæ or tadpoles of the Batrachians are capable of reproducing lost members, but not so the adults.[[21]] Mature insects have no power of re-growth, excepting in one order, whilst the larvæ of many kinds have this power. Animals low in the scale are able, as a general rule, to reproduce lost parts far more easily than those which are more highly organised. The myriapods offer a good illustration of this rule; but there are some strange exceptions to it—thus Nemerteans, though lowly organised, are said to exhibit little power of re-growth. With the higher vertebrata, such as birds and mammals, the power is extremely limited.[[22]]
In the case of those animals which may be bisected or chopped into pieces, and of which every fragment will reproduce the whole, the power of re-growth must be diffused throughout the whole body. Nevertheless there seems to be much truth in the view maintained by Prof. Lessona,[[23]] that this capacity is generally a localised and special one, serving to replace parts which are eminently liable to be lost in each particular animal. The most striking case in favour of this view, is that the terrestrial salamander, according to Lessona, cannot reproduce lost parts, whilst another species of the same genus, the aquatic salamander, has extraordinary powers of re-growth, as we have just seen; and this animal is eminently liable to have its limbs, tail, eyes and jaws bitten off by other tritons.[[24]] Even with the aquatic salamander the capacity is to a certain extent localised, for when M. Philipeaux[[25]] extirpated the entire fore limb together with the scapula, the power of re-growth was completely lost. It is also a remarkable fact, standing in opposition to a very general rule, that the young of the aquatic salamander do not possess the power of repairing their limbs in an equal degree with the adults[[26]] but I do not know that they are more active, or can otherwise better escape the loss of their limbs, than the adults. The walking-stick insect, Diapheromera femorata, like other insects of the same order, can reproduce its legs in the mature state, and these from their great length must be liable to be lost: but the capacity is localised (as in the case of the salamander), for Dr. Scudder found,[[27]] that if the limb was removed within the trochanto-femoral articulation, it was never renewed. When a crab is seized by one of its legs, this is thrown off at the basal joint, being afterwards replaced by a new leg; and it is generally admitted that this is a special provision for the safety of the animal. Lastly, with gasteropod molluscs, which are well known to have the power of reproducing their heads, Lessona shows that they are very liable to have their heads bitten off by fishes; the rest of the body being protected by the shell. Even with plants we see something of the same kind, for non-deciduous leaves and young stems have no power of re-growth, these parts being easily replaced by growth from new buds; whilst the bark and subjacent tissues of the trunks of trees have great power of re-growth, probably on account of their increase in diameter, and of their liability to injury from being gnawed by animals.
Graft-hybrids.—It is well known from innumerable trials made in all parts of the world, that buds may be inserted into a stock, and that the plants thus raised are not affected in a greater degree than can be accounted for by changed nutrition. Nor do the seedlings raised from such inserted buds partake of the character of the stock, though they are more liable to vary than are seedlings from the same variety growing on its own roots. A bud, also, may sport into a new and strongly-marked variety without any other bud on the same plant being in the least degree affected. We may therefore infer, in accordance with the common view, that each bud is a distinct individual, and that its formative elements do not spread beyond the parts subsequently developed from it. Nevertheless, we have seen in the abstract on graft-hybridisation in the eleventh chapter that buds certainly include formative matter, which can occasionally combine with that included in the tissues of a distinct variety or species; a plant intermediate between the two parent-forms being thus produced. In the case of the potato we have seen that the tubers produced from a bud of one kind inserted into another are intermediate in colour, size, shape and state of surface; that the stems, foliage, and even certain constitutional peculiarities, such as precocity, are likewise intermediate. With these well-established cases, the evidence that graft-hybrids have also been produced with the laburnum, orange, vine, rose, etc., seems sufficient. But we do not know under what conditions this rare form of reproduction is possible. From these several cases we learn the important fact that formative elements capable of blending with those of a distinct individual (and this is the chief characteristic of sexual generation), are not confined to the reproductive organs, but are present in the buds and cellular tissue of plants; and this is a fact of the highest physiological importance.
Direct Action of the Male Element on the Female.—In the eleventh chapter, abundant proofs were given that foreign pollen occasionally affects in a direct manner the mother-plant. Thus, when Gallesio fertilised an orange-flower with pollen from the lemon, the fruit bore stripes of perfectly characterised lemon-peel. With peas, several observers have seen the colour of the seed-coats and even of the pod directly affected by the pollen of a distinct variety. So it has been with the fruit of the apple, which consists of the modified calyx and upper part of the flower-stalk. In ordinary cases these parts are wholly formed by the mother-plant. We here see that the formative elements included within the male element or pollen of one variety can affect and hybridise, not the part which they are properly adapted to affect, namely, the ovules, but the partially-developed tissues of a distinct variety or species. We are thus brought half-way towards a graft-hybrid, in which the formative elements included within the tissues of one individual combine with those included in the tissues of a distinct variety or species, thus giving rise to a new and intermediate form, independently of the male or female sexual organs.
With animals which do not breed until nearly mature, and of which all the parts are then fully developed, it is hardly possible that the male element should directly affect the female. But we have the analogous and perfectly well-ascertained case of the male element affecting (as with the quagga and Lord Morton’s mare) the female or her ova, in such a manner that when she is impregnated by another male her offspring are affected and hybridised by the first male. The explanation would be simple if the spermatozoa could keep alive within the body of the female during the long interval which has sometimes elapsed between the two acts of impregnation; but no one will suppose that this is possible with the higher animals.
Development.—The fertilised germ reaches maturity by a vast number of changes: these are either slight and slowly effected, as when the child grows into the man, or are great and sudden, as with the metamorphoses of most insects. Between these extremes we have every gradation, even within the same class; thus, as Sir J. Lubbock has shown[[28]] there is an Ephemerous insect which moults above twenty times, undergoing each time a slight but decided change of structure; and these changes, as he further remarks, probably reveal to us the normal stages of development, which are concealed and hurried through or suppressed in most other insects. In ordinary metamorphoses, the parts and organs appear to become changed into the corresponding parts in the next stage of development; but there is another form of development, which has been called by Professor Owen metagenesis. In this case “the new parts are not moulded upon the inner surface of the old ones. The plastic force has changed its course of operation. The outer case, and all that gave form and character to the precedent individual, perish and are cast off; they are not changed into the corresponding parts of the new individual. These are due to a new and distinct developmental process,” etc.[[29]] Metamorphosis, however, graduates so insensibly, into metagenesis, that the two processes cannot be distinctly separated. For instance, in the last change which Cirripedes undergo, the alimentary canal and some other organs are moulded on pre-existing parts; but the eyes of the old and the young animal are developed in entirely different parts of the body; the tips of the mature limbs are formed within the larval limbs, and may be said to be metamorphosed from them; but their basal portions and the whole thorax are developed in a plane at right angles to the larval limbs and thorax; and this may be called metagenesis. The metagenetic process is carried to an extreme point in the development of some Echinoderms, for the animal in the second stage of development is formed almost like a bud within the animal of the first stage, the latter being then cast off like an old vestment, yet sometimes maintaining for a short period an independent vitality.[[30]]
If, instead of a single individual, several were to be thus developed metagenetically within a pre-existing form, the process would be called one of alternate generation. The young thus developed may either closely resemble the encasing parent-form, as with the larvæ of Cecidomyia, or may differ to an astonishing degree, as with many parasitic worms and jelly-fishes; but this does not make any essential difference in the process, any more than the greatness or abruptness of the change in the metamorphoses of insects.
The whole question of development is of great importance for our present subject. When an organ, the eye, for instance, is metagenetically formed in a part of the body where during the previous stage of development no eye existed, we must look at it as a new and independent growth. The absolute independence of new and old structures, although corresponding in structure and function, is still more obvious when several individuals are formed within a previous form, as in the cases of alternate generation. The same important principle probably comes largely into play even in the case of apparently continuous growth, as we shall see when we consider the inheritance of modifications at corresponding ages.
We are led to the same conclusion, namely, the independence of parts successively developed, by another and quite distinct group of facts. It is well known that many animals belonging to the same order, and therefore not differing widely from each other, pass through an extremely different course of development. Thus certain beetles, not in any way remarkably different from others of the same order, undergo what has been called a hyper-metamorphosis—that is, they pass through an early stage wholly different from the ordinary grub-like larva. In the same sub-order of crabs, namely, the Macroura, as Fritz Müller remarks, the river cray-fish is hatched under the same form which it ever afterwards retains; the young lobster has divided legs, like a Mysis; the Palæmon appears under the form of a Zoea, and Peneus under the Nauplius-form; and how wonderfully these larval forms differ from one another, is known to every naturalist.[[31]] Some other crustaceans, as the same author observes, start from the same point and arrive at nearly the same end, but in the middle of their development are widely different from one another. Still more striking cases could be given with respect to the Echinodermata. With the Medusæ or jelly-fishes Professor Allman observes, “The classification of the Hydroida would be a comparatively simple task if, as has been erroneously asserted, generically-identical medusoids always arose from generically-identical polypoids; and, on the other hand, that generically-identical polypoids always gave origin to generically-identical medusoids.” So again, Dr. Strethill Wright remarks, “In the life-history of the Hydroidæ any phase, planuloid, polypoid, or medusoid, may be absent.”[[32]]
According to the belief now generally accepted by our best naturalists, all the members of the same order or class, for instance, the Medusæ or the Macrourous crustaceans, are descended from a common progenitor. During their descent they have diverged much in structure, but have retained much in common; and this has occurred, though they have passed through and still pass through marvellously different metamorphoses. This fact well illustrates how independent each structure is from that which precedes and that which follows it in the course of development.
The Functional Independence of the Elements or Units of the Body.—Physiologists agree that the whole organism consists of a multitude of elemental parts, which are to a great extent independent of one another. Each organ, says Claude Bernard,[[33]] has its proper life, its autonomy; it can develop and reproduce itself independently of the adjoining tissues. A great German authority, Virchow,[[34]] asserts still more emphatically that each system consists of an “enormous mass of minute centres of action. . . . Every element has its own special action, and even though it derive its stimulus to activity from other parts, yet alone effects the actual performance of duties. . . . Every single epithelial and muscular fibre-cell leads a sort of parasitical existence in relation to the rest of the body. . . . Every single bone-corpuscle really possesses conditions of nutrition peculiar to itself.” Each element, as Sir J. Paget remarks, lives its appointed time and then dies, and is replaced after being cast off or absorbed.[[35]] I presume that no physiologist doubts that, for instance, each bone-corpuscle of the finger differs from the corresponding corpuscle in the corresponding joint of the toe; and there can hardly be a doubt that even those on the corresponding sides of the body differ, though almost identical in nature. This near approach to identity is curiously shown in many diseases in which the same exact points on the right and left sides of the body are similarly affected; thus Sir J. Paget[[36]] gives a drawing of a diseased pelvis, in which the bone has grown into a most complicated pattern, but “there is not one spot or line on one side which is not represented, as exactly as it would be in a mirror, on the other.”
Many facts support this view of the independent life of each minute element of the body. Virchow insists that a single bone-corpuscle or a single cell in the skin may become diseased. The spur of a cock, after being inserted into the ear of an ox, lived for eight years, and acquired a weight of 396 grammes (nearly fourteen ounces), and the astonishing length of twenty-four centimetres, or about nine inches; so that the head of the ox appeared to bear three horns.[[37]] The tail of a pig has been grafted into the middle of its back, and reacquired sensibility. Dr. Ollier[[38]] inserted a piece of periosteum from the bone of a young dog under the skin of a rabbit, and true bone was developed. A multitude of similar facts could be given. The frequent presence of hairs and of perfectly developed teeth, even teeth of the second dentition, in ovarian tumours,[[39]] are facts leading to the same conclusion. Mr. Lawson Tait refers to a tumour in which “over 300 teeth were found, resembling in many respects milk-teeth;” and to another tumour, “full of hair which had grown and been shed from one little spot of skin not bigger than the tip of my little finger. The amount of hair in the sac, had it grown from a similarly sized area of the scalp, would have taken almost a lifetime to grow and be shed.”
Whether each of the innumerable autonomous elements of the body is a cell or the modified product of a cell, is a more doubtful question, even if so wide a definition be given to the term, as to include cell-like bodies without walls and without nuclei.[[40]] The doctrine of omnis cellula e cellulâ is admitted for plants, and widely prevails with respect to animals.[[41]] Thus Virchow, the great supporter of the cellular theory, whilst allowing that difficulties exist, maintains that every atom of tissue is derived from cells, and these from pre-existing cells, and these primarily from the egg, which he regards as a great cell. That cells, still retaining the same nature, increase by self-division or proliferation, is admitted by every one. But when an organism undergoes great changes of structure during development, the cells, which at each stage are supposed to be directly derived from previously existing cells, must likewise be greatly changed in nature; this change is attributed by the supporters of the cellular doctrine to some inherent power which the cells possess, and not to any external agency. Others maintain that cells and tissues of all kinds may be formed, independently of pre-existing cells, from plastic lymph or blastema. Whichever view may be correct, every one admits that the body consists of a multitude of organic units, all of which possess their own proper attributes, and are to a certain extent independent of all others. Hence it will be convenient to use indifferently the terms cells or organic units, or simply units.
Variability and Inheritance.—We have seen in the twenty-second chapter that variability is not a principle co-ordinate with life or reproduction, but results from special causes, generally from changed conditions acting during successive generations. The fluctuating variability thus induced is apparently due in part to the sexual system being easily affected, so that it is often rendered impotent; and when not so seriously affected, it often fails in its proper function of transmitting truly the characters of the parents to the offspring. But variability is not necessarily connected with the sexual system, as we see in the cases of bud-variation. Although we are seldom able to trace the nature of the connection, many deviations of structure no doubt result from changed conditions acting directly on the organisation, independently of the reproductive system. In some instances we may feel sure of this, when all, or nearly all the individuals which have been similarly exposed are similarly and definitely affected, of which several instances have been given. But it is by no means clear why the offspring should be affected by the exposure of the parents to new conditions, and why it is necessary in most cases that several generations should have been thus exposed.
How, again, can we explain the inherited effects of the use or disuse of particular organs? The domesticated duck flies less and walks more than the wild duck, and its limb-bones have become diminished and increased in a corresponding manner in comparison with those of the wild duck. A horse is trained to certain paces, and the colt inherits similar consensual movements. The domesticated rabbit becomes tame from close confinement; the dog, intelligent from associating with man; the retriever is taught to fetch and carry; and these mental endowments and bodily powers are all inherited. Nothing in the whole circuit of physiology is more wonderful. How can the use or disuse of a particular limb or of the brain affect a small aggregate of reproductive cells, seated in a distant part of the body, in such a manner that the being developed from these cells inherits the characters of either one or both parents? Even an imperfect answer to this question would be satisfactory.
In the chapters devoted to inheritance it was shown that a multitude of newly acquired characters, whether injurious or beneficial, whether of the lowest or highest vital importance, are often faithfully transmitted—frequently even when one parent alone possesses some new peculiarity; and we may on the whole conclude that inheritance is the rule, and non-inheritance the anomaly. In some instances a character is not inherited, from the conditions of life being directly opposed to its development; in many instances, from the conditions incessantly inducing fresh variability, as with grafted fruit-trees and highly-cultivated flowers. In the remaining cases the failure may be attributed to reversion, by which the child resembles its grandparents or more remote progenitors, instead of its parents.
Inheritance is governed by various laws. Characters which first appear at any particular age tend to reappear at a corresponding age. They often become associated with certain seasons of the year, and reappear in the offspring at a corresponding season. If they appear rather late in life in one sex, they tend to reappear exclusively in the same sex at the same period of life.
The principle of reversion, recently alluded to, is one of the most wonderful of the attributes of Inheritance. It proves to us that the transmission of a character and its development, which ordinarily go together and thus escape discrimination, are distinct powers; and these powers in some cases are even antagonistic, for each acts alternately in successive generations. Reversion is not a rare event, depending on some unusual or favourable combination of circumstances, but occurs so regularly with crossed animals and plants, and so frequently with uncrossed breeds, that it is evidently an essential part of the principle of inheritance. We know that changed conditions have the power of evoking long-lost characters, as in the case of animals becoming feral. The act of crossing in itself possesses this power in a high degree. What can be more wonderful than that characters, which have disappeared during scores, or hundreds, or even thousands of generations, should suddenly reappear perfectly developed, as in the case of pigeons and fowls, both when purely bred and especially when crossed; or as with the zebrine stripes on dun-coloured horses, and other such cases? Many monstrosities come under this same head, as when rudimentary organs are redeveloped, or when an organ which we must believe was possessed by an early progenitor of the species, but of which not even a rudiment is left, suddenly reappears, as with the fifth stamen in some Scrophulariaceæ. We have already seen that reversion acts in bud-reproduction; and we know that it occasionally acts during the growth of the same individual animal, especially, but not exclusively, if of crossed parentage,—as in the rare cases described of fowls, pigeons, cattle, and rabbits, which have reverted to the colours of one of their parents or ancestors as they advanced in years.
We are led to believe, as formerly explained, that every character which occasionally reappears is present in a latent form in each generation, in nearly the same manner as in male and female animals the secondary characters of the opposite sex lie latent and ready to be evolved when the reproductive organs are injured. This comparison of the secondary sexual characters which lie latent in both sexes, with other latent characters, is the more appropriate from the case recorded of a Hen, which assumed some of the masculine characters, not of her own race, but of an early progenitor; she thus exhibited at the same time the redevelopment of latent characters of both kinds. In every living creature we may feel assured that a host of long-lost characters lie ready to be evolved under proper conditions. How can we make intelligible and connect with other facts, this wonderful and common capacity of reversion,—this power of calling back to life long-lost characters?